There is no cure for cancer/AIDS/HIV...or is there?!?!?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Se7en

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Feb 10, 2001
Messages
3,531
Location
all around in the dark - everywhere
drevil_bigglesworth6.jpg


muwhahahahahaha....

sorry, couldn't resist. moving right along...

My brother happened to bring this up in coversation the other day...he has devised his own conspiracy theory that there actually IS a cure for all three of the aforementioned diseases. He cites these reasons as to why the cure will never be revealed:
  • The MASSIVE amounts of money tied up in charities, donations, and healthcare.
  • The number of jobs provided by medical research and healthcare.
  • Quite simply- population control.

He also thinks it's possible that if you have the right amount of money and know the right people that it's possible to get cured, i.e. Magic Johnson.

I think while this is possible, it's not probable. What about everyone else? I'm curious if there has ever been any kind of articles or writings published about the posibility.

"We can put a man on the moon but we can't cure a disease? Yeah right." ~My brother.
 
isn't magic johnson simply a healthy HIV+ individual?
like plenty of others in NA?
 
Anti-retroviral therapy can sustain one's life indefinitely (and keep the viral load extremely low) provided one can pay for the $1,000 a year supply. 40 million Africans cannot, and will soon die unless the medicine is donated from the rich world, or the medicine is provided at sub-market prices. Magic Johnson, I would think, has no problem dishing out $1,000 a year to keep himself alive; the same is true for most of HIV+ North America.

A vaccine will probably be invented within ten years. Vaccines to complex diseases like HIV/AIDs are far more complicated than the simple rocketry used to propel us to the moon, technology that's been around since 11th century China.

Conspiracy theories make my head hurt.
 
You want medical conspiracy theories, take a look at all the Paxils and Zylofts and Prozacs and stuff. Pharmaceutical sales have gone through the roof in only a few years... there have been thousands of cases showing the horrible side effects of these drugs, yet they keep going. They're even mailing "anti-depressants" direct to people's houses now using (supposedly) confidential medical records!
 
I agree... the money tied up in research will prevent a "cure for HIV" from being discovered for a long time... while science may advance to that point i just think that capitalism won't allow that, for a while at least
 
Sorgie said:
I agree... the money tied up in research will prevent a "cure for HIV" from being discovered for a long time... while science may advance to that point i just think that capitalism won't allow that, for a while at least

Uh, care to expand upon this cynical and profound-sounding but hand-wavy accusation?

And Se7en, if your brother's so sure that cures for cancer and HIV are so simple to find, perhaps he'd like to go through the painful process of becoming a medical researcher and invent these cures so that he can snag all the money that there is to be made from inventing such medicines. The way he's thinking, he might as well accuse the government of inventing HIV in order to create work for medical researchers.
 
Last edited:
Sorgie said:
i just think that capitalism won't allow that, for a while at least

Ah yes.. A vague statement that quite frankly is full of shit.. Though I will admit it is all in how you take this statement and what specifically is being referenced by 'capitalism'... But it is a moot point to speculate as to what this means.. On a different note.. Evidence has been given by studies that a placebo works just as well for curing Depression as Zoloft and Prozac.

Allow me to insert a few quotes...

The Revival Of The AIDS Crisis
By Chad Stafko

"Oftentimes AIDS activists claim that the disease does not discriminate when selecting its victims. This is simply not true. Individuals who are in monogamous sexual relationships and have not engaged in promiscuous sex, have little chance in ever contracting the disease. "

"With the methods of transmission laid out, it becomes quite obvious that AIDS, unlike so many of the diseases that affect millions of Americans, is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Yet, despite the obvious simplicity in preventing the spread of this disease, our government spends an enormous amount of money on AIDS."

"If AIDS, which some estimate affects an upper limit of 900,000 Americans, is truly only a minor cause of death among Americans, then why is such an enormous amount of federal funding allocated to the disease? After all, how much money should it take to tell Americans, and especially children, to not 'sleep around' and engage in homosexual relationships? "

"Our government spends in excess of $8 billion per year in AIDS-related programs. The question must be asked, "Should our government continue to spend this much money on a disease that is largely preventable?" The answer is clearly "No!" We should certainly continue to search for a cure, though arguably this is should not be a function of the government. However, funding for AIDS education should be cut and the funds moved to finding cures for diseases that are either passed on genetically or not largely preventable, such as diabetes and heart disease. By doing this, maybe more innocent people can be saved who are stricken with an unpreventable disease."

And one more by Chris Rock, which might relate to the above mentioned statement, but again, I won't speculate... "They can find a cure for AIDS, just as they can make a Cadillac that can last forever, but just like everything else.. there's no money in it, they will make it so you can 'Live With It'."

L.Unplugged
 
Last edited:
A further problem with a conspiracy of this magnitude is that it requires an AWFUL lot of people keeping their mouths shut. People have long since blown the whistle on the tobacco industry in an age and society where whistle-blowing is encouraged (Linda Tripp notwithstanding).

Even if I buy the anti-business conspiracy that says they're sitting on such profitable ideas as the cure for AIDS and cold fusion (and I don't), I highly doubt that the everyone would be playing along.

More specifically, AIDS is caused by a virus, and we have been unable to cure ANY virus - just occasionally develop vaccines that put us a few decades ahead of the strain.

Further, cancer is just the generic term for cells growing and dividing at an unhealthy rate. It is caused by a variety of things (genetic, developmental, and environmental) that are hard to pin down and harder to correct.
 
Lemonite said:
Ah yes.. A vague statement that quite frankly is full of shit.. Though I will admit it is all in how you take this statement and what specifically is being referenced by 'capitalism'... But it is a moot point to speculate as to what this means..



Let me expain in simple terms, for all you gunslingers. The way our medical system works, based on the "theoretical (and imaginary) system" of capitalism needs something to capitalize off of. This means that if a "cure for HIV" was found, ALOT of people would be out of jobs. THE MAN, ie people who support unnecessary and old fashioned things like rights for guns, does not want change like this because it will disturb the "natural" order of things, and cause a huge disruption in the economy...

If there was a cure for HIV/AIDS I'm not so sure it would be profitable- human rights organizations woul probably lobby governments to offer it to all those infected, therefore actually costing more money than the present system of priveleged treatment. The more people in 3rd world countries means more mouths to feed, which means more money then must go into these countries.... everything is tied together and so often people fail to see this... the issue is too large for anyone to make any concrete statement about.

I'm not saying that we are "sitting on a cure" rather than there are just too many hoops to jump through to get there

ps- the issue is larger than just Americans.... in third world countries HIV/AIDS is found predominately in so called "heterosexuals"
 
Last edited:
70% of cancers are cured. The 30% who do not make I dont think are left to die due to any conspiracy. There are different types of cancers some are too savage or too far spread for some people to be cured.
 
Number of diseases: many thousands.
Number of diseases eradicated: one.

And it sure as hell ain't HIV.
 
We've conquered one disease, smallpox, and that was through vaccination. We've never eradicated a disease through cures, and no viral disease has ever been cured, let alone one as tenaciously mutant as HIV.

Cancer, itself, is difficult, requiring elimination of every last cancerous cell. I'm guessing it comes back, because precancerous cells still exist or the stimulus causing the mutation into cancer is still present. I've also heard that cancer is often caused by a virus (can anyone credible corroborate that?), so, again, the difficulty is in ridding a virus. I have heard, though, that there is a fairly promising technology involving vaccines for certain cancers. Can anyone corroborate that as well?

As much as mankind claims to know, the more it shows how little we still do know.

Melon
 
YES that's right, the NRA is in conspiracy with the medical world and the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.:lol:

but unfortunately, I don't think it is as easy as that.... I would be more than willing to explain myself better just as soon as I can afford a new computer that doesn't make it such a pain in the ass to type more lenthy discussions...
 
speedracer said:


The way he's thinking, he might as well accuse the government of inventing HIV in order to create work for medical researchers.

Didn't HIV originate in primates (...i think) in the jungles of Africa? So it would be silly to accuse the government of inventing it.

Relax people, it was just something that was brought up in a casual conversation. Next time I'll keep such things to myself.

BTW, I really don't think simple firecrackers got us to the moon and back.
 
melon said:


Cancer, itself, is difficult, requiring elimination of every last cancerous cell. I'm guessing it comes back, because precancerous cells still exist or the stimulus causing the mutation into cancer is still present. I've also heard that cancer is often caused by a virus (can anyone credible corroborate that?), so, again, the difficulty is in ridding a virus. I have heard, though, that there is a fairly promising technology involving vaccines for certain cancers. Can anyone corroborate that as well?


Dunno about viral cancers. I do know that the primary obstacle to curing cancers is finding treatments that don't also lay waste to healthy cells.
 
Achtung Bubba said:
So the NRA is suppressing a cure for AIDS because of the jobs that would be lost?

:eyebrow:

Not just because of the jobs that would be lost, but also because AIDS is a wonderfully effective method of population control in Africa. :rolleyes:
 
melon said:
I've also heard that cancer is often caused by a virus (can anyone credible corroborate that?), so, again, the difficulty is in ridding a virus. I have heard, though, that there is a fairly promising technology involving vaccines for certain cancers. Can anyone corroborate that as well?

Certain types of cancers can be brought on by viruses. It is common in things like cervical cancer. I do believe that the term "often" is problematic in your statement, though.

As for promising vaccines, most of the money is being directed at anti-viral drugs (mainly nucleoside analogues) because the mutation times make it difficult for a vaccine to be created, and often there is no animal pool.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to add that by cured I meant the patient is freed from it. They go into remission, or declared cancer free from their treatments.

Apologies. My mistake.

*NB: This came from an endocronologist, so context is important here. He may not have been referring to patients worldwide, only Australia and this was 1-2 years ago so this may not be accurate today.
 
by Chad Stafko
"If AIDS, which some estimate affects an upper limit of 900,000 Americans, is truly only a minor cause of death among Americans, then why is such an enormous amount of federal funding allocated to the disease? After all, how much money should it take to tell Americans, and especially children, to not 'sleep around' and engage in homosexual relationships? "
Oh, so once again not being a pervert will save you? Who is this ignorant fuck you're quoting, Lem?
 
Lemonite said:

The Revival Of The AIDS Crisis
By Chad Stafko

"Oftentimes AIDS activists claim that the disease does not discriminate when selecting its victims. This is simply not true. Individuals who are in monogamous sexual relationships and have not engaged in promiscuous sex, have little chance in ever contracting the disease. "

"With the methods of transmission laid out, it becomes quite obvious that AIDS, unlike so many of the diseases that affect millions of Americans, is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Yet, despite the obvious simplicity in preventing the spread of this disease, our government spends an enormous amount of money on AIDS."

"If AIDS, which some estimate affects an upper limit of 900,000 Americans, is truly only a minor cause of death among Americans, then why is such an enormous amount of federal funding allocated to the disease? After all, how much money should it take to tell Americans, and especially children, to not 'sleep around' and engage in homosexual relationships? "


Dear Lemonite, why do you quote shit like that?
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
Dear Lemonite, why do you quote shit like that?

In Lemonite's defense, what the article says does appear to be true. At least in the United States, the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion has almost disappeared; the spread of the disease is now limited to three avenues:

- Sexual intercourse (homosexual AND heterosexual; the article emphasizes the point).

- Shared needles (typically by heroin addicts).

- The transmission from a woman to her child during pregnancy.

The main path of tranmission IS sexual intercourse, that path WOULD BE cut off with sexual prudence, abstinance before a lifelong monogamous relationship. The article is correct in asserting that AIDS "is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships."

Finally, given the number of people suffering with the disease and the "free will" nature of its transmission, the effort to combat the disease DOES seem to get a disproportionate amount of federal dollars, probably because of political reasons. The same gay rights organization that insist that AIDS is not a "gay" disease (for the record, they ARE right) are STILL among the loudest voices for funding AIDS projects.

As offensive as you might find that article, nothing you quote was inaccurate.
 
Achtung Bubba said:


In Lemonite's defense, what the article says does appear to be true. At least in the United States, the transmission of HIV by blood transfusion has almost disappeared; the spread of the disease is now limited to three avenues:

- Sexual intercourse (homosexual AND heterosexual; the article emphasizes the point).

- Shared needles (typically by heroin addicts).

- The transmission from a woman to her child during pregnancy.

The main path of tranmission IS sexual intercourse, that path WOULD BE cut off with sexual prudence, abstinance before a lifelong monogamous relationship. The article is correct in asserting that AIDS "is largely preventable if only individuals would not have multiple sexual partners, either in homosexual or heterosexual relationships."

Finally, given the number of people suffering with the disease and the "free will" nature of its transmission, the effort to combat the disease DOES seem to get a disproportionate amount of federal dollars, probably because of political reasons. The same gay rights organization that insist that AIDS is not a "gay" disease (for the record, they ARE right) are STILL among the loudest voices for funding AIDS projects.

As offensive as you might find that article, nothing you quote was inaccurate.

No, the article is inaccurate. It doesn?t mention the fact that practically ninetynine percent of relationships are not monogamous. Thats the fact and therefore the article is totally useless and the author sucks.

Imagine you have a wife, Bubba. Imagine you are married to her for many years. You are true to each other, but for one reason or the other she has sex with a stranger, just one night. But this stranger didn?t have a relatively monogamous life like her. He had sexual intercourse with many women, one of them positive. He is positive. He gives it to your wife, she gives it to you. Just one example, excuse me to stress your patience with personal examples.

Now you want to say "well but then in the end it was not monogamous"... but who can guarantee you to be true for all her life? No one, Bubba. Neither you can guarantee that. There is no guarantee. There is just the will. The strong will maybe, sure. But zero of guarantee.

Another example... imagine you have had a happy juvenile life, say you had about ten girls with who you were having sexual intercourse. Now you meet your first real partner. You don?t know it, but you are already infected. Three years after you married her, she gets ill. And it was a perfect monogamous relationship, right? But you didn?t make a test. Yes, its a cruel disease. Not early enough? Welcome to the club.

I don?t care if the author of this article throws in a few "liberal goodies" (sorry liberals), like "Oh we all know that it is not only about homosexuality, so lets repeat it again, it can also happen to heterosexuals". But come on, everyone knows that, this point doesn?t have to be emphasized (or maybe also - for the bulls and the cows).

It is true that this disease does not discriminate when its searching its victims (puh, how can a disease discriminate? - typical shit journalist style).

Then, the author also seems to be the opinion that the money would be better spent for doing a big media campaign, maybe to tell the people "Don?t fuck around". Sure, this will have a great effect. Ridiculous.

"And how much should it cost to tell especially children not to sleep around?" (well how much does one ad, double site, in your magazine cost, dear Mr. Journalist?). Sentences like that make me vomit, like a bag full of shit. First, children don?t "sleep around". Children are sexually abused, and mainly not by other children, but by guys like this motherfucker. Juveniles have sex, maybe, idiot. But since when do they "sleep around" more than adults?

Go get a life, man. I am confident enough - without backing up with data - that most of the Americans have sex not only for the reason of getting a child, and more than two times per life, and more than one partner per life. This won?t change, even if you have the biggest media campagne this world has ever seen. This means that the number of new infections can only be reduced if we all use condoms. Not if we would all live monogamous - which most of us will never do, anyway.
 
Dude... you're ignoring what is absolute fact. The AIDS virus spreads through sex with multiple people. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, for sure, that is THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. I know it sucks, because you don't get to have sex with anyone you want to. But it's the only way to guarantee that the spread stops.

I am not at all at risk of contracting Aids. You know why? Because I haven't had sex. Having sex with only one partner in your life is a sure fire way to avoid AIDS (providing your partner did as well). Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening... as if we'd gone back to before the so-called "sexual revolution"... but you have to remember that before the "sexual revolution" the spread of STD's was not a tenth of what it is today. Now we have more sex, and now we have more sick.
 
KingPin said:
Dude... you're ignoring what is absolute fact. The AIDS virus spreads through sex with multiple people. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, for sure, that is THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT. I know it sucks, because you don't get to have sex with anyone you want to. But it's the only way to guarantee that the spread stops.

I am not at all at risk of contracting Aids. You know why? Because I haven't had sex. Having sex with only one partner in your life is a sure fire way to avoid AIDS (providing your partner did as well). Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening... as if we'd gone back to before the so-called "sexual revolution"... but you have to remember that before the "sexual revolution" the spread of STD's was not a tenth of what it is today. Now we have more sex, and now we have more sick.

Well sorry there Dude but you are ignoring what is absolute fact.
There are things called CONDOMS. Ok, we all hate them. But they do protect. If you didn?t have any sex until now, I can understand that you don?t know that...
come back in a few years.:yawn:

Great to hear you will have sex with only one partner. Have fun.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


Well sorry there Dude but you are ignoring what is absolute fact.
There are things called CONDOMS. Ok, we all hate them. But they do protect. If you didn?t have any sex until now, I can understand that you don?t know that...
come back in a few years.:yawn:

Great to hear you will have sex with only one partner. Have fun.

Now now now... let's not be snarky.

I'm fully aware of condoms, smartass. And I understand that without having had sex. They DO NOT protect against STDs 100% of the time... not even close. That is a fact. Condoms are not more safe than not screwing a load of different people. Get real.

I appreciate the way you tried to discredit my point by making fun of me... childish, but it reveals a alot.

Yeah, I'll have fun... a whole lot of fun, in fact... And you have fun putting yourself at risk for contracting a life-ending disease. Or a painful STD that lasts your whole life.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have sex. Not at all. Go mad, have a great time. But don't tell me that somehow I'm the delusional one for knowing that you're putting yourself and your health at risk.
 
Wow, KingPin, you and I agree... Are you sure you're not someone else? :D

Obviously, I disagree with hiphop:

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
No, the article is inaccurate. It doesn?t mention the fact that practically ninetynine percent of relationships are not monogamous. Thats the fact and therefore the article is totally useless and the author sucks.

The article's assertion is that lifelong monagamy between two disease-free people (gay or straight) will prevent both from becoming infected with HIV (excluding IV drug use or the almost non-existent transfusion of infected blood).

This IS accurate, regardless of how few people actually practice monogamy. At most, that stastic means that the article's assertion is incomplete, not inaccurate. Perhaps it means that lifelong monogamy OUGHT to be further encouraged, that we should turn away from this idea that sexual liberation somehow leads to spiritual liberation (see "Pleasantville" for a good example of the insidious suggestion).

The article is NOT useless - particularly to those practicing lifelong monogamy and those encouraging the practice in others.

And, well, the author doesn't suck.

You're absolutely right that lifelong monogamy may be a very difficult thing to achieve, but many priests practice lifelong celibacy: if a life without sex is possible, surely it's reasonable to expect a life with just one sexual partner, a husband or wife whom you love more than yourself, a soulmate.

Short of that, some sense of social responsibility is a good thing: if not monagamy, then the use of condoms and regular testing is the least you can do.

But, speaking as a Christian, I believe God intended sex within marriage, lifelong heterosexual monogamy sealed by a binding oath before God and the rest of the world - two becoming one flesh, the one remaining under God's provision.

I close with a slight disagreement with KingPin:

KingPin said:
Granted, with this model, there would be much less sex happening...

Not necessarily: it seems possible that a husband and wife could have more sex. One can hope. :)

Either way, I'd prefer quality over quantity. I believe - and my heart confirms this - that sex under the institution of marriage with the woman I love (my girlfriend of two years) would be far better than sex under any other circumstances. Beyond the physical enjoyment, there would be a real union of minds, hearts, EVEN souls - all with the blessing of God Almighty.

I believe God objects to sex outside of marriage, but He doesn't merely allow it within marriage: He encourages is, almost saying, "Go ahead, kids, have fun." He created the act, and all its pleasures, for that very purpose.
 
KingPin said:


Now now now... let's not be snarky.

I'm fully aware of condoms, smartass. And I understand that without having had sex. They DO NOT protect against STDs 100% of the time... not even close. That is a fact. Condoms are not more safe than not screwing a load of different people. Get real.

I appreciate the way you tried to discredit my point by making fun of me... childish, but it reveals a alot.

Yeah, I'll have fun... a whole lot of fun, in fact... And you have fun putting yourself at risk for contracting a life-ending disease. Or a painful STD that lasts your whole life.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have sex. Not at all. Go mad, have a great time. But don't tell me that somehow I'm the delusional one for knowing that you're putting yourself and your health at risk.

Oh come on Kingpin, don?t take me that serious. I would never joke anybody about sexuality, ok I just wanted to say "you oughta know that" then it occured to me that you can?t, you?re not my wife.

It is true that I am at risk, yes. And if you really can have sex with only one partner, in all your life, congratulations, seriously. Couldn?t absolutely be my kind of life (for them girls: yes I can be true, I have been true for years and years, so don?t interprete).

Apart from our private lives: condoms are pretty safe. Not one hundred percent, but don?t they reach something like this so called factor of 97 percent? You are protecting yourself against HIV if you use them. KingPin, go to ask any AIDS/ HIV test center in the world.

Or lets make a virtual bet. Say you have 1,000 pairs of partners who say and feel they will be true to each other for all their life and don?t use any protection, no one infected. Plus, take 1,000 pairs who will always use condoms, include the fact that 3 percent of them break or whatever, and also in this group, no one infected. Go there after 20 years, and see what you will find. I am very sure that more than 30 of the 1,000 first pairs will tell you they have been untrue, at least once in their life.

Sorry if you took it snarky, Kingpin, this was absolutely not my intention. I was answering this style because you started with "Dude", so I thought you would take it more like joking around.
No offense there. Okey, Dude?
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


Oh come on Kingpin, don?t take me that serious. I would never joke anybody about sexuality, ok I just wanted to say "you oughta know that" then it occured to me that you can?t, you?re not my wife.

It is true that I am at risk, yes. And if you really can have sex with only one partner, in all your life, congratulations, seriously. Couldn?t absolutely be my kind of life (for them girls: yes I can be true, I have been true for years and years, so don?t interprete).

Apart from our private lives: condoms are pretty safe. Not one hundred percent, but don?t they reach something like this so called factor of 97 percent? You are protecting yourself against HIV if you use them. KingPin, go to ask any AIDS/ HIV test center in the world.

Or lets make a virtual bet. Say you have 1,000 pairs of partners who say and feel they will be true to each other for all their life and don?t use any protection, no one infected. Plus, take 1,000 pairs who will always use condoms, include the fact that 3 percent of them break or whatever, and also in this group, no one infected. Go there after 20 years, and see what you will find. I am very sure that more than 30 of the 1,000 first pairs will tell you they have been untrue, at least once in their life.

Sorry if you took it snarky, Kingpin, this was absolutely not my intention. I was answering this style because you started with "Dude", so I thought you would take it more like joking around.
No offense there. Okey, Dude?

Totally man... my bad. Dude. :)

Excuse me if I'm a bit sensitive on the issue of sex... trust me.. I'm NOT having a good time doing this no-sex thing. :) it's immensely frustrating for anyone who is trying to do it. It's even more frustrating when people assume cause you choose not to, means you're completely naive on the topic. I certainly like the idea of being with one girl... hoepfully I can live up to the ideal.

And I don't mean to imply everyone should stop having sex. I just think the author has a point in that this disease which is so deadly and feared is actually easily stopped... anybody can ensure they don't receive it. Where as something like Cancer strikes without warning or foreknowledge (except skin cancer and excessive sun exposure, etc.) So should those diseases take precedent, perhaps?

You're right, condom use is a BIG step in preventing the spread of HIV. 97% is still good odds, absolutely. I just find it odd when people act like Abstinence is outrageous... when in fact it's the only sure way.

Once again, sorry for the overreaction.

I look forward to discussing with you and against you!
 
Achtung Bubba said:
Wow, KingPin, you and I agree... Are you sure you're not someone else? :D


I close with a slight disagreement with KingPin:

Not necessarily: it seems possible that a husband and wife could have more sex. One can hope. :)

It isn't the first time, actually. I'd be willing to guess that we'd probably agree wholeheartedly on the majority of topics, with the exception being the US Government and maybe the role of Christianity in Politics. But, as they say, if we were all alike, some of us would be unnecessary.

I agree with your point. By "less sex" I meant less sexual partners... less sex with a variety of people. Or even, if I get married at 35 and start having sex then, no matter how much I try, it'll be hard to have as much in my lifetime as someone who's been going since 17!
 
Back
Top Bottom